Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The DSC rejected the bail application of the accused proprietor of M/S New Global Scrap Traders, charged under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, for fraudulent availing and utilization of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 23,47,68,801/- through fake invoices without actual supply of goods. The court found no violation of fundamental rights under Article 22(1) and (2). Given the gravity of the offence, evidence of issuance of bogus invoices, and risk of evidence tampering, witness influence, and flight, the accused was deemed unfit for bail at this stage. The prosecution's case demonstrated substantial material indicating deliberate tax evasion and fraud, justifying continued custodial detention to safeguard the investigation and public interest.
The DSC rejected the bail application of the accused proprietor of M/S New Global Scrap Traders, charged under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017, for fraudulent availing and utilization of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 23,47,68,801/- through fake invoices without actual supply of goods. The court found no violation of fundamental rights under Article 22(1) and (2). Given the gravity of the offence, evidence of issuance of bogus invoices, and risk of evidence tampering, witness influence, and flight, the accused was deemed unfit for bail at this stage. The prosecution's case demonstrated substantial material indicating deliberate tax evasion and fraud, justifying continued custodial detention to safeguard the investigation and public interest.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
